(07-08-2015 02:50 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: The word "Evolutionist" has been around since 1855-1860. It refers to someone who believes in evolution. I am an evolutionist. You are an evolutionist.

The world is stupid. Would you call someone who accepts gravity a gravitist?

The word isn't stupid. Your opinion is that the word is stupid. I don't share that opinion. For me, "evolutionist" carries the connotation that it refers to a person who is an advocate for the theory of evolution and who is an opponent to other theories or ideas which explain the biodiversity we see today.

Yes, I could see people who believe in some theory/idea which competes with gravity calling advocates of gravity "gravitist". Why? "Gravitist" is one word while "Advocate of the theory of Gravity" is 6 words. Gravitist is more efficient. I would prefer they use it actually.

Would you be upset if people called you an "advocate of the theory of evolution"? In my opinion people who are upset when they see the term "evolutionist" are simply looking for reasons to get upset.

(07-08-2015 09:18 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote: The world is stupid. Would you call someone who accepts gravity a gravitist?

The word isn't stupid. Your opinion is that the word is stupid. I don't share that opinion. For me, "evolutionist" carries the connotation that it refers to a person who is an advocate for the theory of evolution and who is an opponent to other theories or ideas which explain the biodiversity we see today.

Yes, I could see people who believe in some theory/idea which competes with gravity calling advocates of gravity "gravitist". Why? "Gravitist" is one word while "Advocate of the theory of Gravity" is 6 words. Gravitist is more efficient. I would prefer they use it actually.

Would you be upset if people called you an "advocate of the theory of evolution"? In my opinion people who are upset when they see the term "evolutionist" are simply looking for reasons to get upset.

The point is that there is nothing special or uncommon about accepting or advocating the theory of evolution. It's not something that needs to be pointed out. It is the default position in the modern world.

(07-08-2015 12:32 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: The point is that there is nothing special or uncommon about accepting or advocating the theory of evolution. It's not something that needs to be pointed out. It is the default position in the modern world.

If you are having conversation about the validity of evolution, when tossing out quotes from people, it is convenient to know who is an advocate and who is an opponent of evolution. Evaluate the following two statements. Do they convey the same message to you?

Dr Bob, a creationist says, "evolution is an incomplete theory".
Dr Bob, an evolutionist says, "evolution is an incomplete theory"

(07-08-2015 12:32 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: The point is that there is nothing special or uncommon about accepting or advocating the theory of evolution. It's not something that needs to be pointed out. It is the default position in the modern world.

If you are having conversation about the validity of evolution, when tossing out quotes from people, it is convenient to know who is an advocate and who is an opponent of evolution. Evaluate the following two statements. Do they convey the same message to you?

Dr Bob, a creationist says, "evolution is an incomplete theory".
Dr Bob, an evolutionist says, "evolution is an incomplete theory"

An equivalent example would be:

Ned, a Satanist, says "X".
Jim, not a Satanist, says "X".

"Not a Satanist" is redundant, as is "evolutionist", since it essentially means "not a creationist". Satanists and creationists are the outliers. There is no need to explicitly point out the 99.9% who don't fit into those fringe categories.

"Not a Satanist" is redundant, as is "evolutionist", since it essentially means "not a creationist". Satanists and creationists are the outliers. There is no need to explicitly point out the 99.9% who don't fit into those fringe categories.

"How did life originate? Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”

If you know this is about a debate on the validity of evolution and you know nothing about Paul Davies, is it clear what side of the argument is he on? Inserting the term "evolutionist" leaves no doubt. No need to assume facts as you are suggesting.

Again, it really looks like you guys are looking for a reason to be butthurt. "Oh!!! he dropped the "E" bomb so everyone should ignore him otherwise they will get brain damage by the fallout".

Its not that big of a deal really. If I knew you guys were circle jerking I wouldn't have even brought it up. I thought the OP was posing these questions for actual discussion.

(07-08-2015 02:50 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote: The word "Evolutionist" has been around since 1855-1860. It refers to someone who believes in evolution. I am an evolutionist. You are an evolutionist.

The world is stupid. Would you call someone who accepts gravity a gravitist?

Scientists don't "believe' in evolution. They accept it as the best working hypothesis we have that explains what we observe, due to the mountains of evidence that supports it that has moved it towards "factual' status. None of that requires "belief".

Insufferable know-it-all. It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.

The modern term for "evolutionist" is "biologist". Period. It would be just as silly to refer to an astrophysicist as a "Gravitist", as the Theory of Gravity (also incomplete, as are nearly all scientific models/theories) is the most fundamental basis of astrophysics. If someone comes on and says, "The Gravitist, Dr. John Smith of Princeton, has admitted that we don't know exactly what causes gravity to happen", a true statement, it nevertheless alerts us that the person entering the conversation is not likely to be well-versed in how science works, nor a rational debate opponent.

The only people still using the term evolutionist are Creationists. That makes it a visible trigger-word, alerting someone who is hip to such things that the questioner is likely of the Discovery Institute® school of thought, a school which includes basic dishonesty and deception among its tactics, as we have seen literally hundreds of times in this very forum.

You can quibble about an archaic dictionary definition from a time when there might have been other viable options, but in today's world it's simply ludicrous. In other words, I think the only person here seeking "butt-hurt" is you, HJ.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson

"Not a Satanist" is redundant, as is "evolutionist", since it essentially means "not a creationist". Satanists and creationists are the outliers. There is no need to explicitly point out the 99.9% who don't fit into those fringe categories.

"How did life originate? Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”

If you know this is about a debate on the validity of evolution and you know nothing about Paul Davies, is it clear what side of the argument is he on? Inserting the term "evolutionist" leaves no doubt. No need to assume facts as you are suggesting.

Again, it really looks like you guys are looking for a reason to be butthurt. "Oh!!! he dropped the "E" bomb so everyone should ignore him otherwise they will get brain damage by the fallout".

Its not that big of a deal really. If I knew you guys were circle jerking I wouldn't have even brought it up. I thought the OP was posing these questions for actual discussion.

They could just as easily have used the word "scientist" or "physicist" to describe Davies, since that's what he is, and that implies that he accepts the theory of evolution, like at least 99.9% of all scientists. "Evolutionist" is, as Metazoa Zeke pointed out, a stupid word that is only used by creationists.

(07-08-2015 09:18 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote: The world is stupid. Would you call someone who accepts gravity a gravitist?

Scientists don't "believe' in evolution. They accept it as the best working hypothesis we have that explains what we observe, due to the mountains of evidence that supports it that has moved it towards "factual' status. None of that requires "belief".

I know sir, I said accept for gravity in a way to similar to how they call people who accept evolution evolutionist.

(07-08-2015 03:56 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote: The modern term for "evolutionist" is "biologist". Period.

Of course this is trivially easy to show that it is wrong. Not everyone who believes in evolution is a biologist. Professor Davies for instance.

(07-08-2015 04:17 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: They could just as easily have used the word "scientist" or "physicist" to describe Davies, since that's what he is, and that implies that he accepts the theory of evolution, like at least 99.9% of all scientists. "Evolutionist" is, as Metazoa Zeke pointed out, a stupid word that is only used by creationists.

Not everyone who believes in evolution is a scientist or physicist. I suspect that out of the set of all the people who believe in evolution, scientists are a very small minority.

And if you are discussing evolution and tossing out quotes, a quote has a very high probability of coming from a scientist or physicist who holds the minority position. Why would two scientist who hold the same position debate it? Further the debate might not have been between two scientist. Could have been between two autodidacts

All you evolutionists are getting your panties in wad over nothing. I am proud to be an evolutionist.....err..ummm I mean a biologist My diploma is around here somewhere....maybe. You guys go back to circle jerking each other while I find it.